Whatever you think of a bill in the Colorado legislature that would limit the size of gun magazines, isn’t it odd for proponents such as State Rep. Daniel Kagan, D-Cherry Hills Village, to lament the possible loss of a magazine manufacturer as a result?

Yet according to a Denver Post article, Kagan said he plans to bring an amendment Friday so that it is “clear that manufacturers will be able to still sell and transfer these high-capacity magazines to individuals in other states, the U.S. military and law enforcement. We want them (Magpul, a manufacturer of high-capacity ammunition magazines that has threatened to leave) to stay here in Colorado. It would be sad to see them leave.”

Notice that he wants Magpul to be able to still sell not only to law enforcement and the military but to “individuals in other states,” too. Really? Kagan thinks it’s intolerable for Coloradans to buy high-capacity magazines but has little problem with Coloradans building such magazines for shooters elsewhere?

Surely Coloradans are no less trustworthy with large-capacity magazines than residents of other states. And yet some of those trying to prevent Coloradans from buying such magazines are also working to ensure the export from this state of these same products.

Gun-rights supporters hold a banner at a pro gun rally at the Colorado Capitol on Jan. 19. (Andy Cross, The Denver Post)

Good news on the gun background check situation.

The Colorado Bureau of Investigation reports they’ve reduced the wait time for a gun background check to three days, down from a week.

CBI reshuffled staff, and was able to bring down the wait times. That’s a positive development.

However, it shouldn’t take away from legislative efforts to impose a fee on gun buyers — probably in the $10 to $12 range — to pay for the check. As we have said previously, such a fee should cover the cost of the work, and no more.

Recently, CBI’s practice of not starting the clock, so to speak, on measuring processing times has been called into question. The agency is charged with meeting a federal three-day wait period deadline.

The president of the National Rifle Association criticized the practice when he was in Colorado earlier this month. CBI had asked Colorado’s Attorney General to look into the way it accounts for wait times.

As the gun control debates proceed at the Colorado legislature — with a number of pieces of legislation creating heated discourse — it’s good to see CBI take action to show it is responsive to concerns about wait times.

We hear so much about the power of the gun lobby, but in Colorado the gun lobby seems to have a lot less influence these days than the liquor store lobby.

While gun-control legislation made significant progress this week in the legislature, for example, a bill to expand full-strength beer sales in Colorado died without even being put to a vote.

The sponsor, Rep. Kevin Priola, R-Henderson, knew he didn’t have the votes to pass House Bill 1178 out of the Business, Labor, Economic and Workforce Development Committee, according to the Denver Business Journal, and didn’t want to waste everyone’s time with pointless testimony.

Priola’s bill would have permitted grocery and convenience stores, which can only sell 3.2 beer now, to sell “craft beer” – defined as brewers producing no more than 6 million barrels of beer per year. And it would have permitted retail liquor stores to have as many five full liquor licenses instead of just one.

No dice. This entirely reasonable and modest idea never had a chance once the liquor store lobby rallied the troops.

The opposition stoked the familiar anti-competitive fears, arguing that supermarkets might drive a few liquor stores out of business. No doubt that’s possible. On the other hand, good liquor stores presumably drive bad ones out of business. So what? I thought we celebrated competition in America.

More curiously, craft brewers argue that the present system has allowed them to flourish and that it would be hard to place their products in national chain grocery stores. Really? You’d never know it strolling through the aisles of at King Soopers only liquor store on Leetsdale Drive.

This was an opportunity for the GOP to show some moderation, but they let it go by. Some expressed concerns about religious freedom, and whether church-run businesses and organizations could be deemed discriminatory if they declined to serve same-sex couples.

Others, including Mark Scheffel, R-Parker, said the bill violated the meaning of marriage.

“I believe that the institution of marriage was clearly defined and intended as a cornerstone of our society long before the foundations of the earth were laid,” Scheffel said, according to The Durango Herald. “For me, this bill is an erosion of that institution, and I therefore can’t support it.”

The measure still must go to the House, which also is controlled by Democrats, and there is little doubt it will be passed and that Gov. John Hickenlooper, also a Democrat, will sign it. We just wish some Republicans were along for the ride.

The biggest problem with Colorado Democrats’ plan to make gun manufacturers liable for criminal violence is that you can’t do that under federal law, as this Washington Post article explains. But of course Colorado Senate President John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, is aware of this obstacle, and so he disingenuously suggests there’s a move afoot in Congress to repeal that protection.

Actually, such a move has zero chance of success, as Morse surely realizes.

But Morse has a fallback position. According to a Denver Post article, “Morse said some people argue the federal ban was overreaching and violates states’ rights.” So all of a sudden Morse and Colorado Democratic lawmakers are going to position themselves as big fans of federalism and curtailment of the Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause? Can they be serious?

John Hickenlooper told The Denver Post Thursday, “I don’t think I flip-flopped at all” on gun control. “The AP was asking, ‘Should we have that discussion (about gun restrictions)?’ I said, ‘Sure. This is not a discussion that a free, open society should be afraid of.'”

Well, maybe he hasn’t “flip-flopped,” but he certainly has shifted his public position, whatever his private opinion has been all along. In July he clearly said that the guns themselves weren’t the problem in the Aurora theater shootings. “This person,” he said, “if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy’s going to find something, right? He’s going to know how to create a bomb. Who knows where his mind would have gone? Clearly a very intelligent individual, however twisted.”

And he added: “And, you know, if it wasn’t one weapon, it would have been another. I mean, he was diabolical.”

But this week, when the governor called for a debate over gun control, he said, among other things, “When you look at what happened in Aurora, a great deal of that damage was from the large magazine on the AR-15 (rifle). I think we need to have that discussion and say, ‘Where is this appropriate?'”

So now he believes that maybe the nature of the weapon did matter, it seems.

If Hickenlooper had merely meant to say in July that it wasn’t an appropriate time to talk about gun control in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy – which was in fact the case – he could have said so. But he went well beyond that, so naturally people now say he’s changed his tune. Because he apparently has.

It’s good to hear Attorney General John Suthers say he will respect the will of the majority of voters who legalized marijuana.

“Despite my strongly held belief that the ‘legalization’ of marijuana on a state level is very bad public policy, voters can be assured that the Attorney General’s Office will move forward in assisting the pertinent executive branch agencies to implement this new provision in the Colorado Constitution,” Suthers said in a written statement.

You get the feeling, though, that Suthers won’t be shedding any tears if the Justice Department decides to challenge the measure in federal court or actually threatens to shut down any retail or growing establishments after the Department of Revenue adopts regulations for their operation.

It would be nice to hear just one Colorado statewide official say he’d like to see the federal government back off and let citizens here proceed with the sort of regulation that Amendment 64 permits. I’m not holding my breath, though.

Legislators in Colorado and eight other states have just announced the creation of state legislative caucuses that will focus on protecting and strengthening Americans’ remarkable religious freedoms. Colorado’s religious freedom caucus will include lawmakers of diverse political and religious viewpoints.

The religious freedom caucus brings together legislators who acknowledge that freedom of religion has become an issue of national importance, an issue which all thoughtful legislators should study in order to provide savvy, respectful leadership. The goal of its members is to preserve the broad middle ground on religious freedom. The centrist view held by the vast majority of Americans is that our exemplary religious freedoms should not be violated because they are a source of great national strength and unity.

America is a nation of millions of members of widely differing religions, and yet it has achieved a remarkable and predominately peaceful religious pluralism that is exceptional even among Western democracies. Similarly, the people of Colorado represent a remarkable diversity of religions and religious beliefs. Strong religious freedoms and rights of conscience ensure that they — and those who adhere to no religious beliefs at all — are able to participate fully and freely in all aspects of civic life. Read more…

All too often it goes unsaid, but this past legislative session was quite remarkable for the amount of work that was done with bipartisan cooperation. In fact, more than 75 percent of the bills passed during the 2012 session passed with fewer than 10 “no” votes, meaning greater than 90 percent approval by Colorado’s representatives and senators.

Of course, there are issues on which we disagree with our friends across the aisle, but when it comes down to getting the things we as elected representatives must complete each year, we are successful in reaching broad bipartisan agreement.

The one and only bill we are required to pass each year is a state budget. This year’s budget is a win for all Coloradans. It invests in our children, saves for our future, fights for Colorado’s senior citizens, protects funding for cancer research, prevention and treatment, and funds water projects. We also passed it with a historic number of votes. In fact, the House of Representatives passed this year’s budget 64-1. Read more…

Vincent Carroll is The Denver Post's editorial page editor. He has been writing commentary on politics and public policy in Colorado since 1982 and was originally with the Rocky Mountain News, where he was also editor of the editorial pages until that newspaper gave up the ghost in 2009.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Posts by Category

Idea Log Archives

About The Idea Log

The idea log The Denver Post editorial board shares commentary and opinion on issues of interest to Coloradans.